But these thoughtful men (we must remember) were eitherphysicians to the King and his Court， Court favourites， orconfidants and friends of the aristocracy and the clergy they couldnot and would not declare open war against either absolute power oragainst clergy and nobility： There remained to them but one methodof disseminating their views， that of concealing their plan ofreform under the obscurity of a profound system， just as， inearlier as well as later times， ideas of political and religiousreform have been embedded in the substance of philosophicalsystems.Following the philosophers of their own age and country，who， in view of the total disorganisation of the national conditionof France， sought consolation in the wider field of philanthropyand cosmopolitanism (much as the father of a family， in despair atthe break-up of his household， goes to seek comfort in the tavern)，so the physiocrats caught at the cosmopolitan idea of universalfree trade， as a panacea by which all prevailing evils might becured.When they had got hold of this point of truth by exaltingtheir thoughts above， they then directed them beneath， anddiscovered in the 'nett revenue' of the soil a basis for theirpreconceived ideas.Thence resulted the fundamental maxim of theirsystem， 'the soil alone yields nett revenue' therefore agricultureis the sole source of wealth.That is a doctrine from whichwonderful consequences might be inferred -- first feudalism mustfall， and if requisite， landowning itself； then all taxation oughtto be levied on the land， as being the source of all wealth； thenthe exemption from taxation enjoyed by the nobility and clergy mustcease； finally the manufacturers must be deemed an unproductiveclass， who ought to pay no taxes， but also ought to have noState-protection， hence custom-houses must be abolished.
In short， people contrived by means of the most absurdarguments and contentions to prove those great truths which theyhad determined beforehand to prove.
Of the nation， and its special circumstances and condition inrelation to other nations， no further account was to be taken， forthat is clear from the 'Encyclop閐ie M閠hodique，' which says， 'Thewelfare of the individual is conditional on the welfare of theentire human race.' Here， therefore， no account was taken of anynation， of any war， of any foreign commercial measures： history andexperience must be either ignored or misrepresented.The greatmerit of this system was， that it bore the appearance of an attackmade on the policy of Colbert and on the privileges of themanufacturers， for the benefit of the landowners； while in realityits blows told with most effect on the special privileges of thelatter.Poor Colbert had to bear all the blame of the sufferings ofthe French agriculturists， while nevertheless everyone knew thatFrance possessed a great industry for the first time sinceColbert's administration； and that even the dullest intellect wasaware that manufactures constitute the chief means for promotingagriculture and commerce.The Revocation of the Edict of Nantes --the wanton wars of Louis XIV -- the profligate expenditure of LouisXV -- were utterly ignored by these philosophers.
Quesnay in his writings has adduced， and replied to， point bypoint， the objections which were urged against his system.One isastonished at the mass of sound sense which he puts into the mouthof his opponents， and at the mass of mystical absurdity which heopposes to those objections by way of argument.Notwithstanding，all that absurdity was accepted as wisdom by the contemporaries ofthis reformer， because the tendency of his system accorded with thecircumstances of France at that time， and with the philanthropicand cosmopolitan ideas prevalent in that century.
